Space technology is developed by large corporations that filed large teams of extremely talented people to work on these programs. If everything goes smoothly, they get to "ramp down" those teams (meaning lay off all that talent), and go into maintenance mode.

With all of the billions it takes to develop new systems, no one is in a hurry to begin ramping down. Hence, costs inevitably rise. Engineers also work off of "interest". There is a natural desire to explore new technologies.

It is simply not possible to hire a large, talented, experienced workforce and then tell them to reuse old technologies and cut the costs wherever possible. All you'll end up with is a bunch of rejects from other projects, and bean counters.

No one believes in this project.

The Energia is a long dead project that is largely unproven, while the boost phase of the Shuttle, once the problems with the solid fuel boosters were resolved, has been absolutely reliable. Reuse of shuttle elements is also prescribed by the legislation funding the Moon project and the Ares I and V essentially violate that mandate in any case. There is absolutely no need for the ARES I, as there are three other vehicles in the fleet with the same capacity that have only to be man-rated to carry Orion. The Delta IV Heavy is the most reliable vehicle in the fleet, and should be declared man-rated just from history. The problem with that is that none of them provide adequate power or space to supply the ISS with major spares. The Direct 2.0 Jupiter 132 provides a safety margin for manned flights and can carry enough cargo to supply anything that is needed at the ISS as well as capacity to boost the ISS when needed. The Jupiter 232 has more capacity than the ARES V with much less development cost and much more margin. If the J2X is then developed over time, the Jupiter 232 can carry even more payload, allowing it to supply many possible future needs. With another tank segment and/or a couple more strap-ons, the sky is almost the limit. But the major advantage of Direct is that it keeps the current workforce and comes on line 2-3 years earlier than ARES of any variety, with capacity to boost almost any neartime load envisioned as well as a safety margin for manned flights that is far superior to ARES I. It also does not require the 5 segment booster for either the Jupiter 132 or 232, allowing us to use the huge number of existing boosters. The ARES has no particular advantages, twice the development cost, a loss of trained personnel, and a longer time line. It needs to be dropped along with it's chief proponent, Michael Griffin. He has proven to be a man with neither vision nor common sense.

Maybe, and maybe i'm being overly paranoid, but just maybe they actually want the program being delayed and are making it look like it's "not their fault, it's the techs"…I had a look at the Direct project and it does seem that if deadlines were really the number one priority they would have chosen a similar approach.

Yet all in all Orion is a bit pathetic, apollo 1.1 it seems, it's odd that space exploration is the only sector that doesn't seem to bear any grand ambition, probably for good reasons which are kept away from us. Yet going to the stars is much more than launching rockets, it"s about uniting humans in their perception of their place & role in the cosmos.

I guess unity is not, and hasn't been, the main objective of space powers….Too bad.

They don't launch from California, because 1) the Cape is at a lower latitude and 2) launches take place over the ocean during the critical early phases, so problems don't lead to raining burning debris down on people's head.

The shuttle is old, expensive, has a very poor reliability/safety record, and should have been retired a long time ago.

Um… Apollo flew until 1975… Remember the Apollo-Soyuz flight? There was only a 6 year gap between Apollo and Shuttle.

The unmanned Progress can hold tons of supplies, which currently give the ISS water and food and other things. Supply is not a problem when the shuttle retires.

How is the Ares I not able to use the ISS to the full? Isn't the Orion going to be capable of putting six people on board for an ISS flight? In fact, one of the reasons for Ares instead of current infrastructure is that the shuttle rocket is too large to carry Orion to LEO. It's a waste of resources and money. Ares I will be cheaper per flight.

The real question is… is the cost of development worth the savings on a per flight basis? When is the Return On Investment for the Ares I? If it's under ten years, it's probably worth the development.

Remember Apollo.
The Vanguard rockets still would explode without some fresh ideas from the V2.

So dont be shy. Ask the Ariane guys
They can help you.

For example, as designed, ARES will be unable to supply large spare parts to the ISS. It will also be a very expensive way to provide water. Water s now a by-product of Shuttle fuel cells, but in the future will require separate cargo flights.

There are plans to stockpile spares and develop waste water recycling on-board the ISS. However, as far as spare parts are concerned, when they are used up or an unanticipated failure occurs, the useful life of the ISS may be over.

Current plans call for the Shuttle program to end long before ARES is ready to fly. Remember that after Apollo ended in 1972, the Shuttle was expected to fly within four years. It actually took nine years, until 1981. The same could happen with ARES.

The real problem with this mission is that nobody believes in it. What's the Return on Investment from going to the moon with updated 1960s technology?

Shock absorbers from Midas!